tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 15, 2018 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> clerk: i would like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: we do expect commissioners melgar, johnson, and richards to be absent today. commissioners, first on your agenda is items proposed for continuance. [agenda items read ]
cards. >> president hillis: thank you, jonas. any public comment on items being proposed for a continuance? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commission commission commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: yeah. motion to continue items as proposed to the dates specified. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: and places us onto your consent calendar. the matter listed here under constitutes the consent calendar is considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission, there will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public or the staff so requests in which event the matter should be removed from the consent
calendar as a separate item at this or a future hearing. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: all right. anybody would like to speak on that item on the consent calendar? seeing none, motion to approve? >> move. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 4-0 and places under on agenda item 8, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for april 19, 2018. >> move. >> second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion -- [roll call]
>> clerk: so moved. that motion passes unanimously. item nine, commission comments and questions. >> president hillis: seeing none, jonas, we can move onto the next item. >> clerk: very good. item ten, director's announcements. >> i have no new comments. >> clerk: amazing. [agenda item read]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr director of legislative affairs. this ordinance is being proposed to the allow the hall of justice to store its records at a property that is being used as a self-storage facility. the ordinance would allow that facility to go back to its previous use. supervisor kim amended the
ordinance to include the commission's recommendation. at the hearing, there was no significant discussion on the item by the committee members and there was no public comment. the item was forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation. then, to the full board this week, the lower polk alcohol restricted use district passed its second read, and the establishment of the lgbtq leather cull right lane district was adopted, and so far, i have no introductions. that concludes my report. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim frye, department staff just to share with you a couple of items from yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing. alone with the central soma package of nominations that will come before this commission, each p.u.c. nominated to commence mint conservation district. this district, along with the other districts initiated under the central soma plan will be
before you for your review and comment at your hearing next week. the commission unanimously approved initiation and there were a few members of the public property owners that spoke both in support and had additional questions regarding the responsibilities and benefits of locate of designation, and so we continue our outreach efforts through the central soma hearing process to keep those property owners informed. and then finally, i wanted to just make you aware although you probably have heard that the arts commission and the historic preservation commission filed a briefing for a request for rehearing for a certificate of appropriateness to remove the early days sculpture from the pioneer monument. we understand that that rehearing request will be on june 13, and that concludes my presentation unless you have any questions. thank you. >> president hillis: anything from board of appeals?
>> clerk: apparently not. >> president hillis: all right. thank you mr. starr and mr. frye. >> clerk: commissioners, that'll place us on general public comment. at this time, the members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. i do have several speaker cards. >> good afternoon. all four of you. yesterday paper, in addition to the wonderful paper of stephen curry coming back to play in that wonderful game the other night was the thing about the report states housing growing, and i thought the numbers were interesting, but i'll leave it for commissioner richards to bring it up when he returns. what i wanted to mention was a year ago on may 4th, actually, you had a d.r. hearing for a
project on 24th street up the hill just below market. and that, you took d.r., and you reduced the deck that was off the upper level. it was a horizontal and vertical two story vertical addition turning a two story single-family home into a two unit building. facade change, as well. and it's interesting, last week or two weeks ago, two people came up to me and said vertical addition. and here's the project as it is now, there's the machine in the back. here's a broader picture of it. here's a closeup. this, i want to highlight behind the garage there, and then, there's that more detailed, the...but this
picture's interesting because it sort of looks like there's new wood there, but you can't tell. i just took these on sunday. well, there's about four or five complaints outstanding on it. people are having trouble, adjacent neighbors are having trouble with their foundation and just the -- their adjacent yards, so i guess -- oh, and it -- you approved it may 4th, and it go to the board of ael pas after that permit was issued. but on november 17, it was sold. so -- and as the hearing said, the family that owned it said they needed the space. so you know i just think that the whole -- is this a demolition? i don't know. it certainly is ironic in light of what happened last week with 365 store on the lombardi site.
it's stuff we've seen before. thank you. have a great day. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is cynthia montez, and i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak once again. this time, i would like to share with you my family life at bay crest, and my topic is the 430 main project. my family life at -- at bay crest over the past 25 years. i moved into bay crest in 1993 with my five-year-old son. during the week we would catch the 41 on howard and main to go to school in north beach. on weekends, we would ride our bicycles in the various parking lots. there was a very large selection to pick from, and well before the bike lanes along the embarcadero. the building on the northeast
corner of main and harrison was vacant, and had railroad tracks where the front door is today. i'm sure the sidewalk has covered that up. next door to this building, the other half of the block, was an empty lot where they used to give motorcycle classes. now, another high-rise building exists, well a hole is dug for ten models of underground parking, and they uncovered a ship from the gold rush era. that was quite a hull. the transbay terminal consists of two small parking lots. we only had two small deli grocery stores, which were bay side market and the other on hour and stewart. after many years, we finally got a safeway. we continued to live through the construction of many new buildings where some of the infrastructure convenience of other established neighborhoods wouldn't have experienced. we lived through the bay bridge
retrofit. i feel like i heard every rivet go into that bridge. and we helped to make caltrans a livable neighbor. they had phones that rang as a horn in the yard starting at 6:00 a.m. in the morning, including sundays. we lived through the construction of the pac bell park, subsequently sbc and at&t, and survived the impact it had on the neighborhood while the kinks were being worked out. my point is the family was a pioneer for this up and coming new community. my son went onto graduate at st. peter's and paul and sacred heart. after he went to graduate camp pendleton as a marine and one year to the date of graduation went to iraq. he just recently graduated from college. we are an average family trying to be a part of a successful building of this great community. we're only asking for steps to
help preserve our center courtyard. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gustavo leon, and i'm also a resident of bay crest. i want to start by saying thank you and apologizing at the same time. i don't want to wear out my welcome here. i understand this is the second time we're here for public comment. i'm here just to bring you new information. on our last meeting on april 29, you directed our department to look into two alternatives. the first was the two-tower design. the second was some sort of mass reduction in the middle of the building. the department has come up with a mass reduction design. they call it the cutout design. it will be part of your package
in next week's meeting. now, the two-tower design, however, has not been fully considered by the department. planning has merely included information from the developer, stating that the two-tower design is not feasible, and it doesn't pencil out. i am here just to say that we feel that you should have the privilege to listen and to look at both alternatives fully analyzed. i respectfully ask you to have david winslow, city planning architect who designed the two-tower concept back in 2014, when this project was first submitted to attend our meeting next week so he will be available to address any questions that you may have. here, you have the two-tower
design and i don't see it showing on the screen. this is what david calls a two building design. to the left and to the right with our center courtyard with open spaces meeting in the middle. i would like to read a e-mail that david -- that winslow wrote to doug vu, the planner in charge of the project. i quote, subject 430 main. date, monday, april the 24. doug: these are the talking points for our counter proposal. essentially the closer to code compliance, the better. he's referring to this design. plus, a more defensible position, vis-a-vis to the adjacent residence. massing that respects block, midblock open spaces. 144 dwelling units at the same
size ad propose -- as proposed. 40% two bedrooms. exposure limits to 16 units only, instead of 43%. commissioners, i'm just asking you humbly, please take a look at what this city did in the beginning of this project. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> hello. my name is dane ennis. i reside at 201 harrison street. we have this -- this diagram here was produced in 2014 by the project sponsor, and what it shows -- i apologize for the print, but what it shows is in one area over here, there's two sets of elevators, and then there's another elevator over here. and in 2015, that elevator disappeared and it turned into a mechanical electrical, and plumbing room, which seems to
be very convenient to argue against the two-tower design by saying oh, gee, we can't afford an extra elevator. so we just wanted to bring this to your attention. at one time, there were two sets of elevators contemplated for this project, and at some time, one set of elevators magically disappeared. further, i want to show you this. this is from ramble and what it shows is really a fatal flaw in the design of this proposal. you can see that the light blue figure here is the proposed building at 430 main and 429 beale, and the dark green there is a concentration of pm 2.5. now, the reason that happens that way is because the wind comes from the northwest, and they're building shelters, most of their open space and their
balconies. now, this is really important -- not that we're complaining about existing conditions. what we're complaining about or what we hope to accomplish is to get some kind of responsive alteration in the design that doesn't create problems for the future residents, and doesn't create a nuisance and a hazard on our property. the project sponsor has mentioned many times about the $14 million that the city is going to get in taxes, and i'd like to put that in perspective. if we start talking about health consequences here of the decision to have this design go forward, actually, the risk of getting cancer in this area is one in 10,000. so what's the cost? what's the cost to the families, to loss of work, loss of productivity and stuff like that when we consider new drugs coming on the market can cost as much as $475,000 a year? so any way, it's -- it needs a
little work. also, i have a packet here, and all the way going back from 2014, 2015, 2017, the planning department has indicated that they suggest that the project sponsor consider mirroring the project massing along the side lot line to relate to the adjacent property courtyard or in some other way conjoining open space to add to the existing courtyards. [inaudible] >> president hillis: sure. you can leave it right there. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> president hillis: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. todd david on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i'm very familiar with the 430 main street project, and so just want to make a couple of very brief comments. one is that the two-tower solution would call for a rezoning of the site, and there
is absolutely no guarantee that it would be able to get rezoned. so let's just -- let's start there, the way that the project is being presented is currently code compliant. a two-tower system would take a rezoning. the second thing is it's my understanding it's going to be back before the commission next week, and i believe that the commission has asked the developer to make some changes. so why don't we see what the developer presents next week and -- you know, and then take it from there. and finally, i really want to call out tidewater capital for really doing the right thing. we are one of the developers -- they have held 200 community meetings, so they have interacted with the community a lot. and we don't always get 100% what we want, but that doesn't mean that they're not acting in good faith or i would go the opposite. they go out of their way to involve the community and to have them -- and be very transparent. so i'm sure we'll all be back
here next week fore the exciting conclusion to this project, but just kind of wanted to raise those points. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. okay. any additional general public comment? seeing none, we'll close general public comment, and we can move to the first item on the regular calendar. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that'll place us under your regular calendar for item 12, case number 2018-003257 pca, reauthorizing section 210.3 c concerning new production distribution and repair space. this is a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners, audrey butkus, planning department staff. before i make my presentation, i believe we have representation from supervisor malia cohen's offices and so we're going to have her come up and then susan mah from oewd,
and then, i'll give staff's presentation. >> president hillis: i think you're looking for mr. koret, right? >> unless supervisor cohen's office is not here, so if we could have susan mah from oewd come up, thank you. >> president hillis: yeah. >> hello, commissioners. my name is susan mah, and i am the production, distribution and repair sector manager from the office of economic and workforce development. as you all know, pdr is important to san francisco. we want to support this growth in san francisco. developing new pdr space is hard. building is expensive, and the lease rates that would be necessary to make a project pencil would be out of reach for most pdr users. you're about to hear the staff report for planning code objection 210.3 c and the impetus of that legislation was to encourage the development of
pdr space. and in a few months, you'll actually be able to walk into a building that was made possible by that legislation. place made, a nonprofit whose mission is to secure long-term affordable industrial space to support manufacturing in san francisco will be opening over 50,000 square feet of below market rate manufacturing space. the future tenants of that space are home grown businesses that will be hiring san francisco residents. that is real impact and this is a real -- this legislation is a real tool for pdr development. i just wanted to come before you today to express oewd's extreme support at the reauthorization. we'd be happy to answer any questions. thank you for your time. >> president hillis: all right. thank you. >> okay. so now for just a very brief staff presentation. the ordinance has miss mah said would reto authorize planning code section 210.3 c which
supports the pdr zoning space in several pdr districts so long as those projects also include a significant amount of new pdr space. the the legislation had included a sunset provision that caused the program to expire on december 31st, 2017 unless the board of supervisors account aed to continue, extend or modify the ordinance. the proposed legislation that's before you today was introduced by supervisor cohen with the intent of reestablishing this program and remainioving the st clause, making the program permanent. the department recommends that the commission approve the proposed ordinance as the crossubsidy program that was enabled by this has been successful at achieving its policy objectives by facilitating the development of new pdr space in under developed parcels in pdr districts. this project as 100 hooper is a perfect example of space that
can exist because of the program. the program aligns with the plan to promote healthy industrial industry and accommodate for the difficulty of new industrial uses to establish in a competitive real estate market. this concludes staff's recommendation and i'm also available for questions. thank you. >> president hillis: all right. great. thanks. we'll open this up for public comment. i've got a couple comments. kate, abby, lynn, and gina. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is gina falsetto, and i work for sf made. i work in managing the places to make program and what that offers is for our manufacturers to help them with real estate, whether it's finding space, lease negotiation, etcetera. and the main problem our manufacturers have is finding space. it can take up to a year to
find good manufacturing space that is affordable. i keep a running lilst of companies who are looking for space, and we have 30 companies looking for manufacturing space in san francisco. places like hooper that you just heard about were created with this legislation, and it provides functional, affordable and mainly functional, affordable manufacturing space for our members. it is a safe haven for manufacturers and anything we can do to increase the creation of more functional pdr space is greatly appreciated. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. miss liu. >> good afternoon. my name is lynn liu, and i am a pad maker and product developer, product developer for a local designer for manufacturing for apparrel?
and i started out in 1990, and for the last six years, it's very difficult for local designer to survive because of the high rent. and so for the last year, i was so happy that i was able to find place made affordable rent. so i was hoping that the city would be able to have more of this kind of affordable rent for local designers so that they can stay local manufacturing, affordable to survive. thank you so much. >> president hillis: thank you. miss liu. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is abby wertheim. i know this legislation has a technical name, but my job at
place made was to lead the technical aspects behind 150 hooper. so it was a great collaboration between the public sector and the legislation that underlies this development? really and truly but for this legislation, 150 hooper wouldn't have come into fruition, and the affordable 56,000 square foot building that we eventually purchased and will offer at affordable rents to tenants as soon as it's completed wouldn't exist if it wasn't for this legislation. so the public sector did its part, the private sector came together, and then we leveraged new money to actually make this project possible. so let's have more of it, and we hope that we can create more space in san francisco for local manufacturing and production distribution repair users. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. indicate souffis, ceo of place made and sf made, which is
place made's parent nonprofit. so four years ago, many of you that i'm looking at here today helped us pass a tool that was the first of its kind in this country. so the idea of modelling after affordable housing, finding a new product, pdr that was buildable and' only buildable but affordable. i can personally say we have communities as far away as new york city, as close as san jose looking at what we are doing here as a truly viable model that can work in cities where not only the housing crisis but the construction crisis, the cost of new building is so exorbitant and so difficult to achieve. 150 hooper, as my colleagues, i think well said, we hope is not the end game, it is the
beginning of a whole range of additional projects that with the passage of this legislation today and making it permanent, we will now have written a permanent tool into our code to allow us to build new and very importantly, affordable pdr space. the building that is almost nearing completion about initially how's close to a dozen manufacturers, but behind that, we have 640 other manufacturers in the city that are going to be needing space. and add into others, or thes organizations, i think it tells the city we need to leave no stone unturned. building new has never been more critical. these are the kinds of jobs that support the very families that we are building the affordable housing for. so with that, thank you for
your past support. i want to recognize the leadership of supervisor cohen, the planning department, oewd, my team, and i strongly encourage you to pass this legislation today. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any other additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner fong? >> commissioner fong: thank you. [inaudible] >> commissioner fong: -- new business and job creation, so i'll make a motion to approve. >> second. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i just wanted to second what many already said. i think this is an incredible example for combining good legislation with innovative
examples. i talked about this internationally. i heard it at the american planning association in new orleans. everybody would like to do what we do, but it takes a special breed of planning legislators, as well as an incredibly active and astute private sector to make something like that happen. i'm in strong support. i thank supervisor cohen for being really astute and ware, and in this case, we are supporting it for permanent, which is even better, and i'm at full support. thank you. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this amendment. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 4-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 13 for case number 2018-004477 pca, the central
soma housing sustainability district, informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. joshua switzky with planning staff. next week, on may 10th, you'll have the central soma plan adoption before you, including all of its actions, the eir certification, general plan, code amendments, etcetera. over the past several central soma hearings, we've discussed housing at great length, and there seems to be a widely held desire to both ensure that the full complement of potential housing in central soma is realized and that we expedite this housing as soon as possible and all the benefits that come with it, including affordable housing. as we've also discussed at several of the past hearings this year, one of the options available to the city to achieve this goal of expediting the housing is creating a housing sustainability district pursuant to assembly bill 73,
which was adopted by the state. since we were here, supervisor kim and mayor farrell cosponsored legislation that they submitted, which will also be before you next week to hear and take formal consideration on in tandem with all your other central soma plan items. the department, we think this dovetails very neatly with the plan, and it's an exciting opportunity that hasn't been available to the city in past plans that we've adopted. so today we're here to present to you the effect speaks of the proposed ordinance and have a discussion so that you can be prepared to take action on it next week alongside the other central soma items. so i'll hand it off to pauloikezoe to walk you through it. thank you. >> good afternoon. commissioners. pauloikezoe with the planning department staff. today, i'll just give you a brief introduction on the proposed central soma housing
sustainability district which as josh mentioned will be coming before you next week for adoption. i'll give you a brief overview of ab 73, which is the state law that enabled housing sustainability districts. then i'll cover the features of the central soma plan that make it sort of ideal for d designation as an hsd and then i'll go over the plan to create that which was introduced at the board of supervisors this past tuesday. i'll try and keep my presentation brief so we can have plenty of time for questions and answers and public comment. so ab 73 was introduced by assembly member david chiu in december 2016, signed into law in september of last year. it authorized local municipalities to create housing sustainability districts, which are, i think
envisioned envisioned as overlay districts within current zoning within which housing districts can receive ministerial approval. cities are eligible to receive zoning incentive payments from the state. ab 73 lays out some minimum requirements that all hsd's must meet in order to qualify. first of all, they must be within one half mile of public transit or highly suitable for residential or mixed use development. the state law says an hsd shall be effective for no more than ten years with a possibility for an extension of an additional ten years. the area of an individual district must not be larger than 15% of the city's total
land area, and the district must allow for ministerial approval of housing projects. within the entire district, as least 20% of all housing units must be made affordable to very low, low or moderate income households for a period of no less than 55 years. a local ordinance that creates any district must include procedures and timelines for the review of projects within that district. and then finally, a local municipality must prepare an eir identifying any mitigation measures that housing projects within that district must undertake to mitigate any environmental impacts. the state law, ab 73 also included minimum requirements for projects within hsd's, so a project must be located in a zoning district that principlely permits residential use. a project can include no more than 50% of its proposed square footage as nonresidential use, so basically, it has to be majority residential.
and each project has to include at least 10% of the units on-site as affordable to lower income households. so i'm sort of skipping ahead a little bit, but in san francisco, this means, you know, all projects are required to satisfy section 415, so that would remain in place, but the state law requires 10%. this is kind of the -- the big main point of ab 73, is prevailing wage or skilled in trade labor requirements. so the -- in order to qualify for approval under an hsd, a project, if it is 74 units or fewer, with some exceptions, have to agree to pay prevailing wages to all workers involved in the construction of the project. that threshold is lowered to 49 units or less, so basically, it captures more projects after january 1st, 2022.
if a project is larger than 75 units, then the project sponsor actually has to agree to use skilled and trained workforce, so union labor to complete the construction of the project. and again, this threshold goes down -- any project of 50 units or more on january 1, 2022. so we think central soma is a pretty good candidate for an hsd for several reasons. the plan area meets all of the size requirements of ab 73. as you all know, the area plan process involves several years of deliberation with the community and results in some clear zoning, height and design standards. the plan estimates that 33% of all new housing produced within the plan area will be permanently affordable, which exceeds ab 73's 20% requirement. and finally, the central soma eir -- plan eir has done extensive analysis of impacts
of future growth under the proposed zoning and height changes, and has identified specific mitigation measures. so a local ordinance would meet -- would bring us into -- would meet all requirements of ab 73. it would define the central soma hsd geography as all parcels within the central soma s.u.d., which is that same boundary of the area plan, and then, it will add some local eligibility criteria so we can tailor the hsd to our local context. and finally, it'll specifically a design, review, approval and enforcement processes. so the first main criteria that our local ordinance will add is to limit the size of projects able to participate in the hsd and receive ministerial approval. so as currently drafted, projects with a height over
160 feet would not be eligible for ministerial approval, so they would still be required to go through our project kind of standard review and entitle project. an exception is 100% affordable project, so that type of project of any height would be potentially eligible to be approved for ministerial approval if they meet all criteria. [inaudible] >> -- so for example, so only principleally permitted uses will be eligible for ministerial approval, so anything requires a cu, whether it's hotel, formula retail, cu's will still be required. if kay project -- let's say someone proposes office space, if it's greater than 25,000 square feet, that will still need to go through the office allocation process. little bit of a backtrack, but
this is a map of the proposed heights in the central soma plan, and so as i said previously, anywhere where the number, the height district is 1 -- is higher than 160, those -- those parcels will not be eligible to participate. but just if you kind of look at this anywhere that's not dark pink or red is under 160, so it's still -- it's a pretty large -- in terms of land area, part of the central soma plan that would be potentially eligible. another thing, our local ordinance will ensure is no impact to historic resources, so any projects on parcels containing buildings listed in articles ten or 11 are not eligible for ministerial approval. any project proposed to demolish, remove or convert any existing dwelling unit is also not eligible for a ministerial
approval. and then, hsd projects will have to comply with any mitigation measures identified as amicable in t -- applicable, and they'll have to either agree to comply with those mitigation measures or if that mitigation measure is, for example, a wind study, they'll have to complete that wind study before they are determined to be eligible to participate in the hsd, so introducing a ministerial process will be a bit of a change for us in this project, but as far as design review, all hsd projects will still be reviewed against our recently adopted urban design guidelines, and the central soma guide to urban design. ab 73 requires for all hsd projects to receive a public hearing. i'll talk a little bit more
about that later. and ab 73 also mandates a decision within 120 days. so we are going to start that clock of 120 days when we sort of received a complete application and what we're calling a stable project description. as far as monitoring and enforcement, we -- like any other project, we'll be putting conditions of approval, so the union requirements, the on-site requirements will be put in the conditions of approval. so that will be sort of the enforcement mechanism. any violation of those is a violation of the planning code, and so they'll be treated as such. as far as the labor requirements, the wage and labor requirements, we will -- the local ordinance directs the office -- the olse, the office of labor standards enforcement, to be the monitoring body. so about that informational hearing, the -- as the ordinance is drafted right now, it's a hearing -- the hearing needs to be a brown act hearing. that's what ab 73 requires. it doesn't say anything about
necessarily where it has to take place. so currently, our local ordinance has it -- has the hearing held at the planning department. so we -- the planning department would hold a hearing within 100 days of receipt of a complete application. we would notice it as we are going to be noticing all projects under our new -- the new noticing guidelines that were introduced. and then, the local ordinance also includes what we're calling a progress requirement. i think you might -- you may have mentioned this as a use-1-or-loose it provision. so after receiving entitlement, an hsd project would have 36 months to pull a first building or site permit. if that does not meet that deadline, then the director must hold a hearing to determine whether the project is making a good faith effort towards starting construction.
if the project sponsor cannot prove a good faith effort, then the director must revoke the entitlement. so this is that use it or lose it. so the next step is next week there is an adoption hearing here with all of you. and after that, it'll go onto the board of supervisors, and so because this is a state law, it will need to be certified by hcd, and one it's certified by hcd, then it'll sort of become our local law. so with that, i'm here for any questions you have. we also have sarah dennis philips from the mayor's office, we have moses koret from supervisor kim's office, so after public comment, we're here for any questions you may have. >> president hillis: i'm sure we will. let me open it up to public comment. i've got david wu, but if
others want to speak, please lineup on the screen side of the room. welcome, mr. wu. >> hello, commissioners. my name is david wu with the south of market community coalition network. the public is just hearing about the creation of this housing sustainability district. if this is going to be incorporated into and implemented within the central soma plan, the central soma plan cannot be adopted by the planning commission next week, and no action should be taken by the commission on the plan. the public needs time to actually assess this new component of the plan. this is the first time that we were hearing about it. there was no public outreach or notification regarding this informational hearing on the housing sustainability district that i was aware of. i just received a notification noting that there will be a housing sustainability district via e-mail after this commission hearing aftlready started, but it didn't
reference there was an informational hearing on it. regarding the plan as a whole, we are very concerned that the public still needs more time for input in conversation on this plan that will affect not just the south of market but the entire city of san francisco. this new housing sustainability district just adds to the need for more time and discussion on the project. while this focuses on maximizing profits for developers by up zoning and streamlining the development process, the plan does not create any new policies aimed at addressing he vacation displacement and gentrify -- gentrificati gentrification pressure. we need to stablize the existing community now before the plan is implemented, including before the plan is passed, there must be aggressive acquisition of rent controlled buildings, aggressive site acquisition for
new, 100% affordable housing, the creation of a right of first refusal for residential renters, commercial renters, and nonprofits, and a more atorium on the sale of existing rent control buildings, the sale of land for profit or private development and on any housing construction for plans not included in the existing central soma plan. in addition, the following changes must also be made to the central soma plan before the plan is implemented, including reaching 50% affordable housing for any new market race housing development with an ami range of 30 to 90% for affordable unit and a mandatory dedicate of land for sites for any new housing development that is one acre or larger. the public needs more time for conversation input and discussion as again is highlighted by this informational hearing, and we need this because this plan again will impact the entire city of san francisco, not just the south of market. thank you.
>> president hillis: thank you. >> todd david on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. i want to thank oewd, sarah dennis phillips. i want to thank -- i know moses was there, the building trades was there for these discussions about this particular project. i want to thank david chiu for doing ab 73. i mean, this is exactly what we were hoping would happen from this type of legislation, that we'd be able to get more housing that's going to have really well paying jobs, it's going to create affordable housing, and we're going to get it as quickly as possible. so this is really, to me sacramento lengths beigislatio able to work in conjunction with san francisco and being able to get what we need, housing into central soma that's going to be providing middle-income jobs. i have to comment on this call
for 50% affordable housing, all right? i mean, we are seeing projects right now in the mission disappearing because they can't afford 23%, 24%, 30% affordable. let's be clear, a call for 50% affordable housing is a call for zero -- 50% of zero is zero, so it sounds great. let's call for 75%, but we can't get 20% to pencil right now. so this call for 50%, it's a great headline, but it means let's have no housing, and so let's just have that honest conversation. so ab 73, we're really excited to see that happen, and we think it's going to be a great addition, and thanks to everyone who helped. >> president hillis: thank you.
>> it's feasible under circumstances what we're seeing with the large sb35 projects. again, really using many of the same tools that are being relied on here with housing sustainable district. so we're excited this is moving forward. i think getting labor standards and large area plans has been sort of a white whale for me.
i've been chasing this thing for 12 years. i think it's great we're seeing state legislation that enables it and creates things of structure to provide a range of community benefits with these area plans. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tony robles. just to echo what my colleague had to say about the proposal, the community really does need to be more involved in the discourse about evictions and acquisitions of properties, something we're very concerned about in soma that these changes are going to be taking hold and going to be impacting many, many people. many of these people are in the
community that they serve, seniors exam -- and people with disabilities. we need to make sure their concerns are heard and are articulated. >> we'll close public comment. >> really excited to be here today and involved in the central soma hearing next week. i think this is a game changer for us as a city and i think it's very fitting that we still have such a good relationship with our assemblymen and senators up in sacramento that they can literally craft and provide us tools to expedited housing but do it in a responsible manner with everyone on board from the beginning. and it's also pretty fitting that this could potentially be happening in david's actual
assembly district, which i think is a great idea. also, one other point that sticks out, which i'm really proud about, is the 10% of on site affordable units, we can't choose whether projects use on site or the in lieu fee option, but i think just in the spirit of what we are trying to do up here in the big picture, that this is a really big step in the right direction, and hopefully this will, you know, result in faster approval of better projects. >> thanks. commissioner moore. >> this is a great coincidence in time. i think it leverages public benefits. it's overtly supportive of -- labor. it comes at a speed that is hard to grasp. i understand that it has been mentioned before. i personally was unaware of it. as always, the devil is in the details.
the one gap i have a harder time understanding is, it's a state law, in order to compare it in its effectiveness for central soma, i would like to get a quick overview, perhaps, not today, but how it really applies, under 160 feet, our discussions about housing in it other communities hardly go to barely 30 or 40. i'm curious how this tracks across in the statewide discussion. i see the benefits in the housing market and i see this as an advantageous tool for speeding up construction and approval of projects, things that time lines are really good. does that create an extra bump in benefits? perhaps it should, perhaps not in the first years. it raises questions, but there's hardly any time to talk about it, nor to raise those
questions. if the assembly bill sets minimum standards, does the city need, ma mum standards? is 10% affordable guaranteed on site all we can get, or can we push for more? we have many projects where developers volunteer to do much more, given the shortage of resources on land and sites, a slightly higher on site affordable would be something i would definitely ask the question, why not? so there's a bunch of questions that are very hard to be coherent at the this moment because it's a new subject matter. i do regret that we have three commissioners not here today and can participate in even having this presentation, and i think we may ask for them, on their behalf, that before they come back next thursday, there is
extra time allocated for staff to briefly talk to them about this important matter. >> in -- i think -- i like this piece of legislation. i think it's a pretty simple state forward implementing tool. we spent years, obviously, doing this central soma plan. it's just saying what we've approved while it's not not final and i think you bring up some kind of legitimate points on the policy of the plan and some of the -- some of what's in the plan, like acquiring more rent controlled sites or utilizing city land for affordable housing, that doesn't change the plan or this necessarily. it could change the plan, but this really helps us implement the plan and implement in a way that does it expeditiously and gets more housing online quicker, affordable housing and inclusionary housing as well as market rate housing. this is a great tool. a couple questions, though, that
the public hearing, so could that public hearing be here if you chose to do it here? i mean, is there flexibility in where that public hearing is? >> yes. >> so it's not -- if you wanted to bring it to a commission after you had a hearing, you could do that. >> yeah. it's totally flexible. it just needs to be compliant with the brown act. >> in the use or lose provision, again, you can make the decision on that because if we -- i like that, but, again, we can hit a recession and financing dries up and there's no ability to build housing. so he with don't have to take that entitlement away. we can continue it. >> that's right. correct me if i'm wrong, but it gives shall -- the director would have to have a hearing, and then -- but there is flexibility in deciding if the permit is revoked or not. >> right. okay. in the zoning incentive payment, what is that? >> so that's -- it's kind